DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,458 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘458 patent”) in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2022/0293034 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Instant Application
Reference ‘458 Patent
Notes
A display device, comprising:
A display device comprising:
Nearly Verbatim with same meaning, but slightly different wording
a display panel which displays an image based on an output image signal;
a display panel;
Nearly Verbatim with same meaning, but slightly different wording
and a driving controller which generates the output image signal based on an input image signal, the driving controller including:
and a driving circuit which receives an input image signal and provide an output image signal corresponding to the input image signal to the display panel, wherein the driving circuit includes:
Nearly Verbatim with same meaning, but slightly different wording
an edge detector which generates an edge value for detecting an edge of the image using a plurality of filters having different sizes from each other;
an edge and slope detector which detects an edge of the input image signal and determine an angle between the edge and a virtual line parallel to a first direction;
Both claims recite that the edge detector detects an edge and generate an edge value; claim 1 of the instant application further recites that a plurality of filters having different sizes are used in the edge detector, which is not recited in claim 1 of the ‘458 patent; however, as discussed below with reference Madhav, this limitation is known in the art; claim 1 of the ‘458 patent further recites that an angle is determined, which is not recited in the claim 1 of the instant application; in this regard, claim 1 of the instant application is generic to claim 1 of the ‘458 patent
a weight calculator which calculates a weight based on the edge value;
a weight determiner which receives the edge and the angle from the edge and slope detector and determines a weight based on the edge and the angle
Nearly Verbatim with same meaning, but claim 1 of the instant application does not require use of the angle to determine the weight; claim 1 of the instant application is generic to (broader than) claim 1 of the ‘458 patent with regard to this limitation
and a renderer which converts the input image signal to the output image signal based on the weight
and a rendering module which receives the weight from the weight determiner and compensates for the input image signal based on the weight,
Nearly Verbatim with same meaning, but slightly different wording
and output the output image signal
Claim 1 of the instant application does not require this limitation and is therefore generic to (broader than) claim 1 of the ‘458 patent regarding this limitation
Although claim 1 of the instant application further recites that a plurality of filters having different sizes are used in the edge detector, which is not recited in claim 1 of the ‘458 patent, it is known in the art to use multiple filters of different sizes in an edge detector to perform edge detection. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using multiple filters of different sizes in an edge detector to detect edges (paras. [0012]-[0016], the filter sizes differ by an amount that is related to the difference in the number of pixels, n, between the values of the input image data corresponding to the edge regions of the display panels adjacent to the boundary portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge detector of the ‘458 patent to include multiple filters of different sizes as taught by Kim to ensure that the weights are properly determined. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (using different size filters for the first and second filters of Kim) to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, it is unpatentable over claim 14 of the ‘458 patent in view of Kim for similar reasons to those given above with reference to claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0118360 A1 to Su et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Su”) in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses a display device (Fig. 1, display system 100, 200, para. [0017]) comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 1, display panel 200) which displays an image based on an output image signal (Fig. 1, output display signal SD2, paras. [0017]-[0018]); and
a driving controller (Fig. 1, image processing device 100 comprises a driving controller) which generates the output image signal based on an input image signal (para. [0017] discusses the image processing device 100 driving the display panel 200 to display an image frame), the driving controller including:
an edge detector which generates an edge value for detecting an edge of the image (Fig. 5, edge case detect circuit 120) which generates an edge value for detecting an edge of the image using a plurality of filters having different sizes from each other (para. [0029]: “[t]he edge case detect circuit 120 is electrically coupled to the input data conversion circuit 110, and configured to determine a difference between the target luminance value and each of a part of adjacent luminance values and to identify the kind of a luminance edge characteristic the target subpixel has according to the differences”; the “luminance edge characteristic” constitutes the “edge value” of claim 1, the BRI for which is a value determined based on a difference between at least two adjacent pixels; the BRI is based on para. [0068] of the present disclosure; Su does not explicitly disclose using a plurality of filters of different sizes to generate the edge value);
a weight calculator (Fig. 5, weight matrix configuration circuit 130) which calculates a weight based on the edge value (para. [0030] discusses the weight matrix that is calculated by the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 based on the edge value, i.e., based in part on the “luminance edge characteristic”; Su compares the difference between adjacent pixels to thresholds to determine whether the luminance edge characteristic is a first edge case, a second edge case or a third edge case and then the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 sets the weights based on the first, second or third edge case designation; specifically, circuit 130 sets the weights of the weighting matrix according to different time-dependent functions based on the first, second or third edge case designations); and
a renderer which converts the input image signal to the output image signal
based on the weight (Fig. 5, subpixel rendering circuit 140 converts the input image signal to the output image signal based on the weight; para. [0022]: “[t]he subpixel rendering circuit 140 is configured to perform the subpixel rendering conversion on the target luminance value according to a weighting matrix and all of the first luminance values of the first subpixel group”).
As indicated above, Su does not explicitly disclose using a plurality of filters of different sizes to generate the edge value. However, it is well known in the art to use various types of filters to perform edge detection, such as Sobel filters, Canny filter, Laplacian filters, etc.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using multiple filters of different sizes in an edge detector to detect edges (paras. [0012]-[0016], the filter sizes differ by an amount that is related to the difference in the number of pixels, n, between the values of the input image data corresponding to the edge regions of the display panels adjacent to the boundary portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su to include multiple filters of different customized sizes as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the change to ensure that the weights are properly determined. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (configuring the edge case detect circuit 120 to use multiple filters of different sizes to perform edge detection) to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Su discloses that the display panel (Fig. 1, display panel 200) includes a first pixel, a second pixel, a third pixel which emit light of different colors from each other, wherein the second pixel is disposed in a first pixel row, and wherein the first pixel and the third pixel are disposed in a second pixel row adjacent to the first pixel row (Fig. 1 of Su is duplicated below and annotated to identify the first, second and third pixels that emit light of red, green and blue light, respectively, where the green pixel is disposed in a first pixel row and the red and blue pixels are disposed in a second pixel row).
Regarding claim 13, Su discloses that the input image signal Sd2 to the display panel 200 includes red, green and blue color signals corresponding to the red, green and blue pixels, respectively (Fig. 1, para. [0018]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 15.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Kim as applied to claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2023/0186455 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kim 2”).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Su and Kim do not explicitly disclose that the edge detector calculates the edge value based on a first edge value for detecting the edge of the image in a first direction and a second edge value for detecting the edge of the image in a second direction crossing the first direction. Kim 2, in the same field of endeavor, discloses this limitation (para. [0053]: “[t]he edge detector 60A may detect edge features in an x-axis direction and a y-axis direction by using the Sobel filter….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su to calculate the first edge value by detecting the edge of the image in a first, x-axis direction and a second edge value in a second, y-axis direction crossing the first x-axis direction as taught by Kim 2. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to detect edges in images in more than just one direction since images contain edges in multiple directions. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (configuring the edge case detect circuit 120 of Su to perform edge detection in the x- and y-directions) to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 16.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Kim as applied to claims 1, 12, 13 and 15 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0042886 A1 to Tokizaki et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Tokizaki”).
Regarding claim 11, as indicated above, Su compares the difference between adjacent pixels to thresholds to determine whether the luminance edge characteristic is a first edge case, a second edge case or a third edge case and then the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 sets the weights based on the first, second or third edge case designation. Specifically, circuit 130 sets the weights of the weighting matrix according to different time-dependent functions based on whether the edge value is the first, second or third edge case. Therefore, the relationship between the edge value and the weight is nonlinear because it is based at least in part on the time-dependent function, which are nonlinear. However, Su does not explicitly disclose that the weight increases as the edge value increases.
Tokizaki, in the same field of endeavor, discloses generating weight coefficients of a first filter that increase for pixels corresponding to an increased edge value of an object relative to the weight coefficients that are used for the background in the image. Fig. 1 of Tokizaki shows an edge detection section 103 that detects edges and a first filter coefficient computing unit 104 that generates the weighting coefficients based on the detected edge in the image. Fig. 3B shows a depth image, which shows a background image portion BB, an object image portion AA and an edge EG. Fig. 4A shows the weight coefficients for the first filter for the pixels of the depth image. It can be seen in Fig. 4A that the weight coefficients increase for the increases in the amount of the edge is contained in each pixel. For example, where the amount of edge in a pixel is small compared to the amount of background in the pixel, the weight coefficient may be 0.4 whereas where the amount of edge in a pixel is large compared to the amount of background in the pixel, the weight coefficient may be 0.8 (paras. [0052]-[0054]). Therefore, Tokizaki discloses that the weight increases as the edge value increases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight matrix configuration circuit 130 of Su to calculate the weights to have values that increase with increases in the edge values as taught by Tokizaki. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to ensure that the edges are weighted more heavily than background regions in the image. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (weight matrix configuration circuit 130 of Su to calculate the weights to have values that increase with increases in the edge values) to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 14 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the following limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
calculating the first edge value by performing intersection operation of a first sub-edge value calculated based on a first filter having a first size among the plurality of filters, a second sub-edge value calculated based on a second filter having a second size greater than the first size among the plurality of filters, and a third sub-edge value calculated based on a third filter having a third size greater than the second size among the plurality of filters, and
calculating the second edge value by performing intersection operation of a fourth sub-edge value calculated based on a fourth filter having the first size among the plurality of filters, a fifth sub-edge value calculated based on a fifth filter having the second size among the plurality of filters, and a sixth sub-edge value calculated based on a sixth filter having the third size among the plurality of filters.
Regarding claim 7, the following limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
the edge detector calculates the first edge value by performing intersection operation of a first sub-edge value calculated based on a first filter having a first size among the plurality of filters, a second sub-edge value calculated based on a second filter having a second size greater than the first size among the plurality of filters, a third sub-edge value calculated based on a third filter having a third size greater than the second size among the plurality of filters, and a fourth sub-edge value calculated based on a fourth filter having a fourth size greater than the third size among the plurality of filters, and
wherein the edge detector calculates the second edge value by performing intersection operation of a fifth sub-edge value calculated based on a fifth filter having the first size among the plurality of filters, a sixth sub-edge value calculated based on a sixth filter having the second size among the plurality of filters, a seventh sub-edge value calculated based on a seventh filter having the third size among the plurality of filters, and an eighth sub-edge value calculated based on an eighth filter having the fourth size among the plurality of filters.
Claims 4-6, 8-10 and 18-20 recite allowable subject matter due to their direct or indirect dependence from claims 3, 7 or 17.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art teaches or suggests the following limitations in combination with the limitations of the claims from which claim 14 depends:
wherein the renderer renders the first color signal using a first rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in a first direction, wherein the renderer renders the second color signal using a second rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in a second direction opposite to the first direction, wherein the renderer renders the third color signal using a third rendering filter in which the weight is disposed in the first direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2024/0233629 A1 discloses systems and methods for detecting edge points of line data by computing a difference between prediction data and filtered data, and adjusting (e.g., adding or subtracting weights) based on a predefined threshold. In other examples, an edge filter may be used to sharpen an image with additional memory (e.g., an additional line memory in the display stream compression (DSC) decoder. For example, a Sobel filter or a box filter such as a Roberts or Prewitt filter may be used with an additional line memory to obtain improved edge information. In further examples, the display stream compression (DSC)'s flatness check function may be used to identify edge data before adding or subtracting weights.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667